Why Brands Lost Their Fear of Controversy and Got Political in 2017

Corporate America took a stand against President Trump's policies

It’s a longstanding truism of American business that companies don’t like to generate controversy—and there are few quicker ways to do that than taking a stance on a political issue.

The reticence is understandable. What company wants to jeopardize its stock price with bad PR? Or get hit with a boycott? And what brand wants to risk alienating one segment of its customer base in order to please another?

Plenty of research counsels prudence, too. In 2014, the Global Strategy Group released a survey that found that 56 percent of Americans believed corporations “should stand up for what they believe politically,” and that’s a big number. Even so, that left 44 percent of Americans—pretty close to half—who felt it was inappropriate for companies to take such stands. This year, a 4A’s survey found that 58 percent of consumers “dislike when brands get political.”

But looking back, it’s clear 2017 became the year that corporations shed their reservations about stepping up on the soap box. In overwhelming numbers, America’s largest and most influential brands made their positions on a range of socio-political issues clear—at times brutally so.

And while companies have taken controversial stands in years past—Walmart taking a stance on sustainability 12 years ago or Disney adding domestic-partner benefits as early as 1995—this year was clearly different in another respect: Not only did brands take highly public policy stances, but most of them took the form of active and direct opposition to the President of the United States.

How did it start, and why did it get ugly? Below, a look back.

1. Expedia’s Inauguration-Day warning

It’s hard to say if anyone saw it coming, but what would quickly become a year of companies jumping headlong into the political fray began, fittingly enough, on Inauguration Day: Jan. 20. That Friday, Expedia aired a beautiful, yet heart-wrenching spot called “The Train.” It showed a woman traveling the world, relishing in the beauty of the land and enjoying the company of locals—though gradually, also encountering the disturbing consequences of those with “narrow minds,” including soldiers at checkpoints wielding Kalashnikovs and desperate refugees packing into rafts.

Though the ad’s denouement was a positive one (the woman, having spent her life roving the world and embracing all cultures, grows into an enlightened sage), the implication was clear enough. This ad was a warning against intolerance and, moreover, its timing to inauguration day probably wasn’t a coincidence.

There were, no doubt, many companies that wanted nothing to do with speaking out against a man who not only has a Twitter following of 44.7 million people but was, of course, now the leader of the most powerful country on earth. But soon, caution fell away and companies went on record to condemn the order.

We are a nation of immigrants, and are stronger for it. I oppose excluding people from US based on their nationality or religion, period.

“Executive orders affecting worlds’ most vulnerable are un-American. Dropbox embraces people from all countries and faiths,” tweeted the company’s founder and CEO Drew Houston.

“Like many of you, I’m concerned about the impact of the recent executive orders signed by President Trump,” wrote Facebook founder and chief Mark Zuckerberg, who pointed out that his wife Priscilla’s parents arrived to the U.S. as refugees from Vietnam and China.